In every presidential election, citizens get to cast their votes. But the end-all deciding factor in an election is the amount of electoral votes given to each candidate via the electoral college. Here’s my brief on the electoral college and why we should reinvent it.

Brief History of the Electoral College

According to HowStuffWorks, the Electoral College was initially proposed in 1787 by the framers of the US Constitution. Initially, American leaders of the time were struggling to decide how the nation’s citizens would vote in the president. Many thought that popular vote was not the most responsible way to elect leaders and gave far too much power to larger states. As a solution to this quandary, they decided to create the Electoral College. Although there were historical snags in the system, from the tied election that occurred in the 1800s between Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson, to the electoral upset in 2000 which gave George W. Bush the presidency, it still performs modestly today.

Electoral College Breakdown

In each state around election time, people deposit their votes at the polls which then go towards determining which candidate gets what quantity of electors. There are a total of 538 electors within the system and each state has as many electors as it has Representatives and Senators. New York has a total of 29 versus a larger state such as California which has a total of 55. Although smaller states by comparison get less electoral votes, their votes can often decide the final outcome of an election, especially swing states such as Ohio or Virginia.

Electoral votes are awarded usually based on the popular vote although electors aren’t under any obligation to follow popular notions (if the the 2000 elections are any indicator.) In every election, a candidate can win if they hold 270 or more of the total electoral votes, which is a little more than half of electoral votes. For example, this year’s election saw Obama with a total of 332 votes versus Romney who had 206, according to the Google Election Results Map.

Issues with the Electoral College

With all systems of human design, they’re never truly perfect. One major criticism of the electoral college is that it doesn’t give equal say to those in smaller states. Should more checks and balances exist to give equal say for citizens in smaller states? Montana with a total of three votes is completely dwarfed by the voting might of California with its 55 electoral votes. Obama’s win of California completely flipped the playing field where in previous hours he was trailing behind Romney by a wide margin.

Another issue is that the majority ruling on who gets the electoral votes doesn’t accurately represent a state on an individual voter level. Voting Republican in heavily blue states like New York or voting Democrat in heavily red states like Texas can seem like a fools errand for many. This also may be a factor in why many people abstain from voting in the elections, especially when the odds literally belittle the value of their vote.

Solutions?

There is no clear cut solution as to how to fix the Electoral College or even if we need to at all. Some advocate for the complete dismantlement of the organization, leaning towards popular voting, while others believe in simply reinventing the system itself. There are also those who heavily support maintaining the voting structure as it is, having more of a “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach to the problem.

For me, I feel that it could use a tune up in a few areas, particularly in how electoral votes are allotted to candidates. Maybe electoral votes should be given based on the percentage of total votes towards a candidate? Although this sacrifices speed it could be worth the trade-off in order to properly represent voters in politically predestined states. Acting as a sort of quasi-popular vote mechanism, it could be viable.

Readers, what would you change about the Electoral College? Would you change it at all?

Working on this blog with the D&C has been a joy for me. Not only was it an opportunity to test my chops when it came to writing on politics but also encouraged me to look underneath the two party platforms to learn more about third parties, a topic that rarely floats to the media’s surface. As the media is obliged to give a voice to voiceless, I’m surprised that third party coverage was almost nonexistent in major news organizations. This doesn’t necessarily mean we should serve as a mouthpiece for presidential hopefuls but we should be encouraged to cover these lesser known candidates because they present different points of view and have interesting perspectives on current issues.

To be transparent, I had to decide between voting for Obama or a third party candidate. When it came down to it, I filled out my absentee ballot for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, because of minor caveats I had with Obama’s current policies. I’m against the use of drone strikes in the Middle East, which I feel is going to hurt us in the future, and I am against the increase in warrantless electronic wiretapping under the Obama administration. Do I agree 100% with Johnson’s policies? Of course not. I don’t believe anyone can create a list of perfect presidents without being hindered by personal bias.

The point is that people are often assailed because they have to choose between a lesser of two evils but are not aware of all their options. Not to say third party candidates are not without their policy faults as well but it just seems very quizzical that citizens complain about slim pickings when there are alternatives. A great example of this was a phone conversation I had with my mother a few days after the election. A staunch conservative when it came to presidential candidates (voted for Ronald Reagan and George W. among others,) she shocked me by saying she voted for Obama. The implication here is that she abhorred Romney so much that she voted for the other aisle.

I think the final message I’d like to leave readers is never settle for what’s available. Take the time to research present and past positions of possible presidential candidates. We, the citizens, ultimately decide who sits in the Oval Office. Until next time!

As we file to the polls this election day, news organizations and the like are posting all sorts of data, trends, and st0ries from one hour to the next. What most people may not know of are two trends to follow about America’s least well known political group, Third Parties:

1) Gary Johnson Gaining over 6% of the Popular Vote and How Other Candidates Fare

According to the Examiner, Johnson is quickly gaining over 6% of the national vote in the 48 states he’s campaigned in. While this is miniscule compared to the percentages both Obama and Romney are commanding, this is actually a strategic advantage to Johnson, who is propping himself for another go at the elections in 2016. Also, this is a requirement of Third Parties to gather at least 5% of votes in order to maintain Federal Status as a Political Party. Although the final tallies may look dwarfed compared to Ross Perot’s 18.9% of the vote in ’92, this will still be a modest step for Third Parties.

2) How Third Party Votes Are Affecting Swing States?

Reported by USA Today, 1% of voters in Ohio today will be voting third party according to an Ohio News Organization Poll. Why is 1% so important? This may not affect certain states that are dead set for a single candidate but this could very well influence who actually wins in major battleground states.

Readers, what are the trends you’ll be keeping tabs on this Election day?

I’ve been known to have been disgruntled over many aspects of the Presidential Debates. I felt the format was an ineffective platform for candidates to present their views and didn’t pressure them enough to go in-depth on their stances. At the last debate, there existed an entirely different conundrum: we were almost focused exclusively on the Middle East with only a few minutes spent on China. Here are two key areas that were missed in this last tussle:

1. Mexico

Photo: The Associated Press

After several years of rhetoric, we still haven’t gotten closer to solving our problems with Mexico. You would think that because Mexico is such a close neighbor to the US, we’d at least have a few questions geared towards immigration, drug trafficking, or the ongoing violence in the country. With a death toll over 50,000 attributed to the cartels, why wasn’t this suggested as a major topic?

2.Greece and the Eurozone

Photo: The Associated Press

With three nations (Greece, Spain, and Italy) on the cusp of economic collapse, the Eurozone should have been addressed, especially since they have a huge impact on the global economy.

Some time could also have been spent on the apparent rise of Golden Dawn, a Neo-Nazi party in Greece that is rising in power and influence under the same conditions that the original Nazi party flourished. According to the Guardian, many members of the political party have infiltrated law enforcement while a number of officers turn their eye away from Golden Dawn’s violent activities. This is a recipe for trouble and should be on our national agenda.

US Rep. Louise Slaughter and County Exec. Maggie Brooks are set to tussle at a second debate tonight that will be hosted by WXXI, broadcast on WXXI, televised through 13 WHAM and covered by the Democrat and Chronicle.

Starting at 8PM, the candidates answer questions from Voice of the Voter panelists Bob Smith of WXXI, Jessica Alaimo of the D&C, and Tariq Spence of WDKX. Sean Carroll of 13-WHAM TV will be moderating.

Much is at stake in this debate, with Slaughter leading the polls by 5 points according to the D&C.

Readers, how many of you will be tuning in and what do you think are the most important issues of this debate.

[CNBC] Fact Checking Feast After Debate: In the aftermath of the latest presidential debate, Obama and Romney squared toe to toe, leaving behind a trail of statements that are not necessarily true. http://www.cnbc.com/id/49445556

[Huffington Post] Strict Voter Laws Blocked and Delayed: With the rise of recent state legislation that requires voter’s to present IDs at election day, the Supreme Court and state courts have been swinging left and right to challenge it. http://huff.to/QX2g5q

[NY Times] Romney- Obama has “Failed America’s Women”: At his first press event after the Tuesday debate, Romney stated that the current administration has not done enough to aid women in the nation. http://nyti.ms/T0IDHX

As an assignment for our class, we were tasked with live tweeting the first of the three presidential debates planned this month before the national elections. During the challenging yet rewarding work, I came to a conclusion: the debate isn’t the best way for candidates to express their ideas.

What was planned to be an hour and a half event that would span six 15 minute discussion points completely unraveled into what basically could be described as a “who could talk the longest while interrupting the moderator” game. Needless to say, these are some of the things I’d change about the national debate:

1) Adjusting the time limit

It’s clear that how time was allotted for the debate really affected the responses the public received Thursday night. While it’s great that the Commission on Presidential Debates wanted to nail as many topics as they could in the allotted time slot, they didn’t take into account how much time really needs to be spent discussing somewhat nebulous topics like the economy or healthcare. The result was only three of the topics being discussed and debated.

In the future, the Commission could approach this challenge in two ways: one, they could extend the debate into a two hour event with 20 minute talking points, or two, focus on a handful of topics with the same time period, extending the time for each.

2) Have more extensive moderation tools

As Jim Lehrer demonstrated, trying to guide the candidates to stick to the program is the least effective way to make them comply to the debate rules. Instead, they should reintroduce buzzers that the moderator can use to end a section of the debate and segway into the next section. Additionally, having the candidates sign a pledge beforehand to stick with the time limit could work as well.

3) Lower the participation criteria

The Commission on Presidential Debates currently has a rule in which candidates must have at least 15 percent in the polls before being eligible to debate. In a nation that is predominantly ran by a two party system, this effectively shuts out the other voices and stances of candidates like Gary Johnson (Libertarian Candidate 2012) and Jill Stein (Green Party Candidate 2012.) I think a new provision that requires there to be a third voice could really shake up the system and keep candidates on their toes.

Now a facet of the election season, Super Pacs have become a way for politicians to raise money for their campaigns.

What is a Super PAC?

A Super PAC or Political Action Committee, is an organization that can accept donations in order to support campaigns through advertising and such. An organization qualifies as a Super PAC when it receives $1000 or more from donors. What makes this very appealing for politicians is that there is no limit to how much someone can contribute to a Super PAC.

Where did they come from?

According to About.com, Super PACs are the result of two court rulings in 2010. The first being Speachnow.org v. Federal Election Committee, this abolished restrictions to how much individuals can contribute to independent organizations. The latter and most important of the two, Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, established the precedent that corporations are individuals and can therefore contribute to independent organizations.

What’s so controversial about Super PACs?

Since Super PACs are considered independent and private organizations in the government’s eyes, they can keep their donor list’s a secret from the public. Combining this with the unbridled freedom of corporations to contribute as much money as they want to Super PACs, we now have a dilemma where corporations can essentially influence our elections. It undermines our political system in earth shaking ways.

Which Super PACs should we look out for?

Sprouting like weeds, there are a multitude of Super PACs, that either support specific candidates or causes. There’s Priorities USA, which supports the Obama campaign and Restore Our Future, that supports Romney. There is a complete list here at Opensecrets.org, which goes into detail about whose given what and what is was used for.

What should we do about Super PACs?

I don’t think there is a single answer to this question. It can range from overturning the Citizens United ruling to introducing some reforming legislation. Either way, Super PACs need to be regulated, as any tool can be miss used as a weapon.

[Associated Press] Romney Supporters Plan Fundraiser in Hong Kong: Today, Romney supporters will come together at a fundraising event in Hong Kong, a commercial hotspot for the US and China. Despite recent remarks made by the presidential hopeful over China’s purported abuse of trade and intellectual property, Romney still is trying to secure more campaign funding. This is not the first time the Romney campaign has taken to Hong Kong for extra cash. Two of Romney’s sons have made visits in the past to the Chinese commercial center. Obama too has been scavenging in China as well, having collected $10,000 in July for the Obama Victory Fund. http://bit.ly/SmKdUh

[Politico] Johnson Finds Ron Paul Write-in “meaningless”: Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, commented against Paul supporters clamoring to write him in on the national ballots this November. Stating that the write-in “will effectively be meaningless,” Johnson spared no time with supporting many of Ron Paul’s own foreign policy stances. Johnson also commented on the possibility of Israel attacking Iran without the backing of the US, saying that it will be “very problematic” and “would result in another 100 million enemies to the country.” http://politi.co/OqJDtZ

[NY Times] Obama Tested As Deficit Passes $1 Trillion: In 2008, Obama promised to cut the annual federal budget deficits in half by the end of his first term. Today, in the aftermath of stimulus programs meant to propel the country from the recession, the federal deficit is set to outpace $1 trillion again this year. This places President Obama in a precarious position concerning the national deficits in the election race. In a recent poll, deficit reduction was the one issue more voters were more confident about Romney completing over Obama. http://nyti.ms/SkKhbA

[Telegraph] Red Alert for Romney Campaign: Romney has been under tough scrutiny these past few days since a video had surfaced of him at an Atlanta Fundraiser citing that 47% of Americans don’t pay income tax and are therefore dependent on the government. Speaking today, Romney stated that he wanted to jumpstart the job market by encouraging private businesses. Ending his spiel, Romney decried Obama, stating that “He really believes in what I will call a government centered society. I know there are some people who believe that if you simply take from some and give to others we’ll all be better off.” http://bit.ly/Uk8dt7

[China Daily] China Bashing From Both Aisles: As the two presidential hopefuls combat in the political arena, some say they shouldn’t be so adamant when talking about China. In a practice that has been coined “China Bashing,” both Obama and Romney have been taking swings in differing ways at our major trading partner. Obama, at a World Trade Organization meeting recently, opened a new trade case in order to stop China from subsidizing the cost of car parts in order to appeal to American voters. Romney on the other hand has chosen to echo a common thought among Americans, that China has been stealing manufacturing jobs, much to China’s chagrin. http://bit.ly/PVmcaN

[ABC News] The Ways To Vote As election days looms closer, US citizens must be sure to register to vote if they’re not already. The ways one can register and vote have increased in the past decade. In a new initiative, Google released an Online Voter Guide to aid voters with the process. The Federal Voting Assistance Program can be another great tool for those US citizens who are living abroad or serving in the military. http://abcn.ws/S5H3UU

[Politico] Tune in Soon to an Israel Ad Near You: Beginning in select cities Florida, an Ad featuring Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supportive of an attack on Iran will air. Sponsored by Secure America Now, the ad raises questions into how far a country can go to influencing our policies and whether the United States is influencing other countries in the same vein. http://politi.co/S7WCj6

Contributors

Kirsten Burkhardt is a fourth-year biomedical sciences major at RIT. She is from Brockport, yet plans to move to the West Coast and pursue a medical degree in non-traditional orthopedics after graduation this spring. Kirsten, 21, enjoys running and advocating for a healthy lifestyle, and has set the goal of completing all 5Ks that RIT offers throughout her last year of undergraduate study. You can reach Kirsten at Kab4926@rit.edu or on Twitter @Kab4926.

Emily Clark is a 20-year-old journalism major from Henrietta. In her third year at RIT, she is the director of talent for RIT SportsZone and an aspiring writer/broadcast journalist. Emily’s favorite things include reading, running, yoga and blue nail polish. She has a slight (understatement) weakness when it comes to sweets. Contact Emily by e-mail at eec8289@gmail.com or follow her on Twitter @emelizclark.

Gino Fanelli is a second-year journalism student from Rochester. A dedicated and passionate writer, Gino aims to create stories that build broad, yet concrete, bridges between American culture and socio-political issues. With the presidential elections slowly inching closer, Gino hopes to reveal the thoughts of the average American on the race, especially after the heated race of 2008. Outside from his writing, Gino is an avid musician and artist. Follow him on Twitter @GinoFanelli.

William Hirsh is a second-year journalism student from Syracuse. A political junkie, William is ecstatic about covering the presidential elections this year, striving to make sense of the political debate and the key issues at stake. This will be his first year voting in a national election. Follow him on Twitter @Chauvet12.

Andrew Magown is a third-year student in University Studies. He is looking to move into the field of journalism soon to follow his career path. He lives in Essex, Conn., and currently studies at RIT. He is involved with the on-campus fraternity of Kappa Delta Rho and enjoys dancing at the Ballroom Dance Club. This will be his second time voting. He watches the candidates with eager eyes. If you have any questions for him e-mail him at amm6914@g.rit.edu, or follow him on Twitter @amagown.

Bianca Meyers is a fourth-year journalism major at RIT. She is from Deltona, Fla., but currently resides in Gates with her husband and two dogs. She is interested in fashion and entertainment news and runs a beauty and style blog. Feel free to contact Bianca at bcm9818@rit.edu with questions or follow her on Twitter @Bianca_Meyers.

William Palmer is a fourth-year photojournalism major at RIT. Born in Kāneʻohe Bay, Hawaii and raised in Newark Valley, N.Y. He plans to move to New Orleans after graduating from RIT in November. He primarily focuses on sports and news photography. He has received honors and awards for his photography from the RIT Honors Show, 66th CPOY and the What We Do Show. William took the class headshots featured here. William can be e-mailed at wap9860@rit.edu and followed on Twitter @wpalmerphoto.

Jessica Sinclair, 24, grew up in Maine with two sisters and one brother. She is a third-year journalism student at RIT. She really enjoys writing, which has always been her passion. She also likes reading and writing about medical and health topics. Feel free to contact her if you have any questions, or comment on her posts. She can be reached through Twitter @SinclairJess.

Alexandria Strader is a fourth-year advertising and public relations student from Rochester. In addition to completing her studies at RIT, she is also the digital marketing associate for Cortese Auto Block. When Allie isn’t busy chasing after her dog, Harry, you may find her at a country music concert, sampling wines and desserts at a local festival, or catching the latest sale at the mall. This is the second presidential election that she will vote in. For more information, contact her at acs1715@gmail.com, or follow her on Twitter @acstrader.

Mike Weiss is a fourth-year journalism student from New Hampshire. He’s currently studying at the weird and wonderful RIT. Mike likes writing about politics and the oddities of pop culture. He likes to think he’s very entertaining; unfortunately, we have to put up with his terrible jokes. Feel free to contact Mike at @mikegweiss on Twitter or mikegweiss@gmail.com.

Chris Zubak-Skees is a fourth-year journalism major at RIT. He hails from Pittsburgh, Pa., but only roots for the Steelers in fair weather. He’s written for RIT Reporter Magazine, Infinity Quad – a blog he started to cover campus – and the Sunlight Foundation in Washington, D.C., and hopes to do this for a living someday. You can follow him @zubakskees or reach him via chriszs@mail.rit.edu.